City of Miami v. State

• Decision Date: 28 July 1939
• Citation: 139 Fla. 598,190 So. 774
• Parties: CITY OF MIAMI et al. v. STATE et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

190 So. 774

139 Fla. 598

CITY OF MIAMI et al. v. STATE et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 28, 1939

En Banc.

Petition by the City of Miami, a municipality in the County of Dade State of Florida, against the State of Florida to have validated proposed issues of municipal refunding bonds wherein five taxpayers intervened and filed answer, and wherein the refunding syndicate members also intervened. From an adverse decree, the plaintiff and the intervening refunding syndicate members appeal, and the intervening taxpayers cross-assign error.

Decree affirmed.

BUFORD J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.

COUNSEL

Lewis Twyman and J. W. Watson, Jr., both of Miami for appellant City of Miami.

Casey, Walton & Spain, of Miami, for appellants Hornblower & Weeks et al.

Mitchell D. Price, Charles W. Zaring, and Jack R. Kirchik, all of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD Justice.

The appeal herein is from an order of the Circuit Court denying and dismissing a petition by the City of Miami, Florida, to have validated by the Court proposed issues aggregating $28,808,000 of municipal refunding bonds, under Chapter 15772, a general Act of 1931, Ex.Sess. The validation proceedings were brought under Chapter 12003, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14504, Acts of 1929 Ex.Sess.; Sections 5106 (3296) et seq., C.G.L. The refunding bonds are designed to be issued under the last portion of Section 6, Article IX of the Florida Constitution, as amended in 1930.

The petition filed by the City under the statute alleged the adoption of, and exhibited copies of, four resolutions of the City Commission to authorize, under Chapter 15772, General Laws of 1931, Ex.Sess., the issuance of the proposed refunding bonds sought to be judicially validated. Notice by order was served on the State Attorney and notice to the taxpayers and citizens of the city was published under the statute. Five taxpayers intervened and filed an answer, and incorporated therein a motion to dismiss the petition, which motion was denied. The State Attorney filed an answer and adopted that of the intervenor taxpayers. Motions by the City to strike portions of the answer of the State Attorneys were denied; and motions to strike portions of the answer of the taxpayers were granted in part. Other parties referred to as Refunding Syndicate Members, alleged to be employed by the City in the refunding operations, were allowed to intervene.

Testimony was taken and the order made by the court is as follows:

'This is a petition by the City of Miami praying for a decree validating $28,808,000.00 of refunding bonds which the city, by the adoption of four resolutions numbered 14358, 14359, 14360 and 14361, authorized to be issued. Certified copies of the resolutions, as well as excerpts from the minutes of the City Commission showing their passage and adoption, are attached to the petition as exhibits. Answer to the petition was filed by the State's Attorney on behalf of the State of Florida, and certain tax payers intervened and filed an answer.

'The respective bond issues of Miami and its component parts from time to time is reflected by Exhibit 'W' which tracks the bonds now sought to be validated to the time of original issue and indicates the interstitial relationship of those portions of the present city which enjoyed an independent existence prior to the consolidations in 1925.

'The $28,808,000 in bonds now sought to be validated represents:

The refunding of a portion of
a former issue under City
Resolution 9072, the validation of
which was affirmed in the Supreme
Court (116 Fla. 517, 157
So. 13) and to the extent of.........
.....................................	$26,445,000
Also a former refunding issue
under resolution #11725 for..........	1,432,000
Also another refunding issue
evidenced by resolution #11909
for $338,000 and $64,000 totaling....	402,000
Also bonds of original issue
issued prior to Sept. 8, 1925, by
the original City of Miami...........	80,000
Also bonds issued subsequent to
Sept. 8, 1925, by the original
City of Miami for....................	5,000
Also bonds of the Greater Miami
area issued subsequent to Sept.
8, 1925, for.........................	444,000
	-----------
	$28,808,000

'The refunding matter now before the Court on behalf of the City of Miami represents an original indebtedness originally incurred as follows;

Original City of Miami....

$ 8,603,000

Coconut Grove area........

309,000

Buena Vista area..........

100,000

Silver Bluff area.........

200,000

Greater Miami.............

19,596,000

-----------

28,808,000

'The resolution for refunding hereby sought to be validated specifies that same shall be pursuant to Chapter 15772, Laws of Florida of 1931, Ex.Sess. Section 8 of which reads as follows:

"Section 8. Bonds issued under this Act may be exchanged for not less than an equal principal amount and/or accrued interest of indebtedness to be retired thereby, including indebtedness not yet due, if the same be then redeemable or if the holders thereof be willing to surrender the same for retirement, but otherwise shall be sold and the proceeds thereof shall be applied to the payment of such indebtedness and/or accrued interest due or redeemable which may be so surrendered.'

'Section 9 of the Act provides for sale and conditions under which the bonds shall be sold, and section 10 provides that same shall be sold for not less than 95% of par. Section 11 reads as follows:

"Section 11. In case of refunding bonds which are not exchanged for bonds outstanding but are sold, only such amount thereof shall be delivered as is necessary to provide for the payment of matured bonds and legally accrued interest and of such unmatured bonds as the holders thereof have agreed in writing to surrender upon payment of a sum not exceeding par and legally accrued interest.'

'And the last sentence of Section 23 reads as follows:

"All refunding bonds issued pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall not be subject to any limitation or indebtedness prescribed by any statutes, charter or other special Act relating to the municipality.'

'Paragraph (a) of Section 58 of the City Charter provides a limitation on the bonded debt of the city of 15% of the assessed valuation of all real and personal property as shown by the rolls of the preceding assessment, with exceptions.

'The assessment roll for 1938 amounted to $155,511,130, which after deducting exemptions allowed of $32,113,745, left a basic amount of $123,397,385.

'The last sentence of Section 23, quoted above, more than likely was intended to read 'limitation of indebtedness' instead of 'limitation or indebtedness' but the question before the court is whether or not the above quoted sentence (Section 23) is in conflict with Section 58 of the City Charter.

'It may not be decisive of the matter but it is noted that Chapter 15772 does not expressly provide that all laws or parts of laws in conflict be repealed; the act was intended to be cumulative and remedial. If the charter provisions and the act can be construed so as to give both effect, such should be done. I find that it was not the intent of the act to permit a violation of the City Charter provisions on the limitation of bonded indebtedness. It was intended only to facilitate the refunding of existing bonded debt.

'The question before the Court is whether or not the City of Miami with its existing bonded debt which considered together with the charter limitations as found in Section 58 thereof, is entitled to have validated its proposed bond issue pursuant to Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess. when by its authorizing resolutions it seeks at its option to either sell such issue and retire the old bonds or exchange these new bonds for the outstanding issue.

'It appears improper for the Court to validate bonds which, pursuant to the resolutions authorizing same, could be outstanding at a time when the prior bonds might likewise be outstanding, without more assurance from the authorizing resolutions providing for and insuring the application of the proceeds of the new issue, in event of sale, to the liquidations of the former issues.

'When the bonded debt limit is reached, the authorizing resolutions should so govern the refunding issue as to insure that refunded issue and the refunding issue are not to be outstanding at the same time when either issue reaches the debt limitation and the two will exceed it. For such to occur would be a violation of the charter and the Court's decree validating same would be improper, for both could not be valid--that exceeding the limitation would be invalid. The court is not supposed to validate that which might result in validity; it is required to validate that which is to be valid when the authorizing resolutions are complied with and conformed to. Such resolutions in this instance would permit, even when complied with, a violation of the charter limitations.

'Wherefore, in consideration of the premises, it is ordered adjudged and decreed that the petition for validation be and the same is hereby denied and dismissed.

'Done and ordered in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 6th day of May, A. D. 1939.

'Paul Barns

'Circuit Judge.'

The City and the intervenors, not including the taxpaying intervenors, appealed, making the State and the taxpaying intervenors appellees, and assigned as errors.

'1. * * * in rendering and entering the said Order.

'2. * * * in denying the petition filed herein by the said City, October 3, 1938.

...